Yes, hence my comment.... Right.. Thank you so much for explaining it to me, iceaura. As a former prosecutor, I simply would never have known if you hadn't taken the time to explain it to me. Thank you sooooo much. Anywho.. Back to what I was discussing... It will not take much for Trump's team to try to discredit the warrant and raise many eyebrows and questions.
So you were wasting other people's time, or dealing in garbage innuendo, once again, and I should have assumed that - - sure and it was an obvious possibility, with you. But Poe's Law applies: One can never presume that you know anything you appear to not know, see anything you appear to have missed, etc, especially about American cultural or political features, regardless of whether you "should" know it, have seen it, etc. No such assumptions, as would be normal in good faith, are safe where you are concerned. It's a kind of quandary. Look at this: That's dishonest, and misrepresents. (That's warrants - plural. Not a small detail, for the professional prosecutor, but I threw it in anyway, above) (And it's Cohen's team that's involved, in delicate point of fact. I don't know who's going to be paying for it). Thank you sooooo much for informing us of that otherwise presumably invisible circumstance, from your perch of knowledge. May we estimate the height of that perch, by the scope of its view? How about by its repetition of the supposedly known contents of the posts above it, as if they did not exist, after complaining about those very posts and the existence of their contents? Because I'm going to, see. And you can just deal, or learn to post honestly.
Can’t say if Santa’s on her contact list, but it appears that the FBI has put a probe up Hillary’s rectum to find out. A top FBI official disclosed in a court filing that grand jury subpoenas were used to try to obtain records not only from Clinton’s account but also from accounts belonging to people she was in contact with. “In instances where the FBI discovered evidence of the potential unauthorized transmission of classified information from the [Clinton] personal email servers to private third party email accounts of individuals with whom Secretary Clinton corresponded and could establish sufficient probable cause, the FBI sought additional legal process, to include grand jury subpoenas, in order to obtain additional e-mails relevant to the FBI’s investigation,” Bill Priestap, the bureau’s assistant director for counterintelligence, wrote in a declaration filed in federal court in Washington. Priestap did not elaborate on which of Clinton’s associates had their email accounts targeted for grand jury subpoenas or whether they were notified of the requests. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/fbi-clinton-email-probe-subpoenas-242689 Can you imagine the picture painted of Trump’s career with the digital ink obtained from his list of contacts? Let’s have Hillary propose a deal with the Shyster in Chief, she’ll show her list of contacts if he’ll show his.
These times are strange and unprecedented times indeed, a factor well worth keeping in mind. The only reason I can think of for why Hillary is not in jail or at the least heavily penalized, is because it is in the interests of serious National/Global security that she not be. That she acted in the interests of national/global security to avoid seriously compromising intelligence from being published or leaked ( via wiki leaks etc) The only reason the FBI,CIA, NSA, Congress and even Trump etc would have backed off is because maintaining the intel's security/secrecy was in the best interests of everyone. That Hillary's actions were in fact heroic, for if they were not she would be in jail by now. When deciding her course of action ( scrubbing her hard drive) she knew that the outcome if the intell was revealed to the public/congress etc would be, by many orders of magnitude, considerably more devastating than any punishment including capital, she may or may not receive. She knew exactly what she was doing and the potential consequences of doing so. If her behavior was nefariously motivated she would be in jail, even if by other means/claims false or true. Fact is, she is not in jail. She has kept the big secret and those emails are secure and probably continues to work with that intel for the greater good. ( can't do it from jail) One day, her selfless heroism and sacrifice will be recognized well beyond personality/identity/party politics or even limited to just the USA and her failed run for POTUS. hint: try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_Level_Event as the class of intel I am referring to. Now, if what I suggest is true then what would you do if faced with similar circumstance?
hee heee...a book...perhaps.. Comey's Higher Loyalty: "In his memoir, James Comey cites a “development still unknown to the American public to this day.” This mysterious development, he says, was central to his decision to intervene publicly in the Hillary Clinton email case." and goes on to say that it is likely to remain highly classified for decades to come...
Robert Mueller appears to be playing things out much like he might play poker. The search warrant for Cohen's files raises the pot a little. Who is bluffing here?
Not sure what you mean... the Cohen investigation is a separate spin off case from the Mueller investigation.... isn't it? I am sure there are many spin off cases that are too minor to be reported about....
Investigations do not have time limits beyond those imposed by statutes of limitations. How long did the Benghazi last? Over two years. And after those two years of investigation, encompassing 33 closed-door Congressional hearings held in congressional investigations and at least four public hearings, costing an estimated cost of $7M+, Republicans on the House Benghazi Committee released their 800-page report. And what was found? Nothing prosecutable. Even the FBI investigation into Hillary's emails didn't come up with anything prosecutable with regard to Hillary. How do we know that? Because the DOJ/FBI has the same information now that it did before, and it hasn't rescinded the decision not to prosecute. Neither has it reopened (as far as we know) the "emailgate" investigation. Criminal investigations generally aren't publicized. The only reason anyone knows the "Russia" investigation is going on is because Comey disclosed its existence as part of his testimony in a Congressional hearing on the matter of Russian meddling in the U.S. electoral process. But for that disclosure, the investigation could have gone on quietly until such time as prosecutors issued subpoena, public search warrants, arrest warrants and/or indictments. There's are several reasons investigations aren't generally disclosed: Law enforcement officers and prosecutors don't want to show their hand. Things that absolutely do militate for a criminal investigation do not necessarily or always rise to the level of being criminal. Indeed, the very point of an investigation is to determine whether they do. Subjects don't want to self-impugn their reputations by announcing they are the subject or target of an investigation. Too, most subjects of investigations have better sense than to politicize their criminal cases and "try" it in the "court of public opinion," because to do that, they must discuss the matter, and discussing the matter is the one thing a subject should not do. (A subject's attorneys might do, but a subject should not.) Every investigation Congress conducts is political. For all the moral high ground Congress asserts when it launches investigations -- "the people deserve answers" -- Congress is a political, not law enforcement organization. Everything Congress and every other elected legislative body does is politically motivated. Sometimes it's the right thing do and sometimes it's not. Sometimes it produces something useful and sometimes it doesn't. But always is it political. Collusion isn't a crime; however some collusive behavior and intents are criminal and some are not. We already know Trump campaign team members colluded with Russians known to be in some way part of the Russian spy apparatus, be it in an official capacity or as a cut-out or conduit. We have two choices about whether the interactions transcend collusive and rise to conspiratorial: We can believe that a good number of senior and/or closely-connected people in the Trump campaign suffer from amnesia or some other memory affliction (Indeed the profundity of the affliction appears proportionally correlated to one's closeness to Trump...Is memory loss contagious, I wonder? LOL), or We can believe the key players on Trump's campaign, when expressly asked about or volunteering their interactions with Russians and other foreign individuals, failed to disclose one or more interactions they had because they were aware that some measure of untoward, criminal or not, activity was part and parcel to those interactions and/or their raison d'etre. It was agreed, that my endeavours should be directed to persons and characters supernatural, or at least romantic, yet so as to transfer from our inward nature a human interest and a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith. -- Taylor Coleridge, Biographia Literaria
the report is in.... Comments by the USA Attorney General Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! images c/o NPR Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The upper level management personnel of the FBI - including Robert Mueller, everyone else involved here, and all its acting and official heads since its inception - have always been members of the Republican Party. The known policy of the FBI is that a sitting President cannot be indicted. That is consistent with the official Republican Party stance for decades now - rightwing authoritarian, and since Reagan fascist. Therefore - and this word is quoted from the report above - the report makes no determination of obstruction of justice. Therefore: No determination one way or the other. Therefore. One way or the other. Notice: There is no obstacle to making a determination of no obstruction of justice, in FBI policy. The only obstacle is to making a determination of criminal, indictable behavior. That is in the paragraph headed "Obstruction of Justice", in QQ's link. That report, alone, is enough evidence for impeachment proceedings to begin.
trying to use the state to spy into private lifes on here say & lies with no physical evidence to look for things by declaring someone "crooked" what has amazed me through the entire process is the amount of self proclaimed American republicans who have supported such a fascist ideology & process. meanwhile no equal measure against the republican leader reinforcing by express and implied terms the absolute rite of special elitists and lobbyists for the governing body(in this case republican fascism)
Btw: So far, we have no real idea what the Mueller report says. Did Barr's summary - a similar approach to his coverup of HW Bush's role in Iran/Contra and "Iraqgate" in 1992 - include a single complete sentence from Mueller's report itself?
It seems to me that the term "collaborator" is appropriate somewhere in this tale. It's not colluding but collaborating.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/03/29/pressure-works-after-four-days-william-barr-capitulates-and-gives-an-estimated-page-count/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: emptywheel/cAUy (emptywheel) It took four days of media pressure to force Barr to release a rough estimate of the size of the Mueller report. The House Judiciary Committee has not received the Mueller report, and no one outside of the Trump administration's appointees has read it. https://judiciary.house.gov/news/pr...-responds-latest-letter-attorney-general-barr Barr is currently - he admits this - preparing a redacted and edited version of the Mueller report to present to the House Judiciary Committee. That is not standard - the Judiciary Committee has been presented with full, unedited reports in all similar circumstances, because that has always been thought to be the Constitutional requirement. One of his purposes in making the redactions and edits is to protect the reputations of some of the people the report is about. That's what he said, in public. He did not say who those people are. That was his job in covering up HW Bush's role in Iran/Contra, and is the most obvious reason for his appointment now.
And yet there was danger in those days of messaging. Watching a couple would-be revolutionary journalists do their, "I don't want to gloat", twittery is its own manner of annoying hilarity, but they, too, are willing to put out statements that can be checked against the actual Mueller report when we finally get to see it. And, sure, there is a joke about the time one of them, an actual media company boss, deleted twenty-seven thousand tweets, and the idea that, "My husband is running for Congress!" is suddenly a respectable reason, but in truth, it's the manner in which he calls out his opposition compared to the record he leaves. A.G. Barr, of course, is simply playing with words, and this part is striking: If we recall that Mr. Barr is, in fact, an attorney, and thus bound as such, it is possible to view his slow-leak campaign not according to the exasperated demand of how what he says could be true, but, rather, to scrutinize what he says and ask how it is not a disqualifying lie. Anecdotally, an example is someone I've known through social media for a while, and you would need to know him for a while to finally pick up on it; he describes his career in a general manner, but never actually says what he does. In fifteen years or so, I don't think I've ever heard him actually say he actually has the particular job he describes. And no, I don't mean identifying information, but, rather: To work in a general field, at a particular sort of institution, and be busy at this time or that, and not actually be doing the job you might think is described. Yes, it's a small thing; like I said, you wouldn't notice until it comes up over and over again, and how often are people so arranged that such observations might arise?° Nor need he actually have a different job than first reading would imply; my point is that even if he did have a different job than he would seem to communicate, he isn't actually lying. To the other, the one thing he is apparently not, and does not claim or imply to be, is a lawyer. William Barr, however, is a lawyer. Not actually lying is not actually good enough for a bar-certified American attorney. And, sure, we can mutter and shrug at what passes the bar in our society, but just how far can an attorney push before not actually lying becomes an act of turpitude? The framework of how the Attorney General is going about his apparent exercise in partisan fealty really puts a lot at stake, and it seemed all but assured that the most accurate reading of his words will, over time, demonstrate to be whatever context by which he is not actually lying: What is or isn't misprision, and what are the odds of winning that argument? Most likely, Bill Barr wouldn't see a prison cell even if these letters are as full of shit as it seems; on balance, if fucking around with things is the point, the risk is probably worth taking as long as he is willing to try. But perhaps strangest about it all is the credulity of how many in the punditry, and the news agencies willing to play along with the pretense of Democratic soul searching, and what the media got wrong. I mean, it's one thing if Greenwald and Tracey want to gloat, but this can still go south for their gloating, and there is some reason to suspect both bullshit and then damage control about Mr. Barr's letters. Meanwhile, my favorite in all this actually isn't a journalist, but a Democratic presidential candidate. And it's one thing that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's (D-HI02)↱ tweet overstates what "Mueller reported"; someone will ask her, in hotter primary weather, about hewing too close to Trump, and we can at least expect an interesting retort. Still, though, a question of optics arises in wondering why anyone would cut the campaign video so there is any risk whatsoever that the default Twitter screen would read, "Tulsi 2020 … with the Russians". I mean, seriously, this will haunt her presidential bid. Not only did the Thursday afternoon tweet age poorly by Friday afternoon, but there was also that amazing gaffe: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yes, really: This is just how it came up on Twitter. With everything else going on in struggling to set such a predictably low bar for President Trump, there was that moment in the Universe. ____________________ Notes: ° It's an internet phenomenon. I have encountered something similar before, but it was a bit more explicit about a person having a particular job when, in reality, he might have actually had a different job that he—(not saying a thing about your or my perception)—somehow considers less prestigious. And I knew that he operated inside a particular institution within the field. It always reminded me of an old Doonesbury punch line, when everyone at ABC News is somehow unavailable, so, "I'm Carlos. I work in the stockroom, and these are tonight's headlines." Because that was the thing: On this other, more explicit occasion, the guy didn't seem to know anything about his field. To the other, and strangely, I did get a random update a couple years ago, and it turns out that one has—(had?)—yet another job, potentially even more prestigious, and would, were it not so hilarious an idea, explain pretty much everything else awry about those episodes. @TulsiGabbard. "Mueller reported Trump did not collude with Russia to influence our elections. Now we must put aside partisan interests, move forward, and work to unite our country to deal with the serious challenges we face." Twitter. 28 March 2019. Twitter.com. 31 March 2019. http://bit.ly/2FKfROi
